pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty offers low prices for smaller files on all RM/RF  (Read 13331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 07, 2009, 14:11 »
0
 Hi All,

 Yesterday Getty released that they will be offering all their content at incredibly lower prices for new web size uses. They added two new smaller sizes to their customers for all their RM and RF Macro collections. This has added an entirely new level of quality and quantity at a very low price. Lots of changes taking place.

Best,
Jonathan


« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2009, 14:15 »
0
oh don't stop there Mr. Ross.
how about giving us your opinion on this move.
you have some people who are always interested in what you consider...

the table's yours, .. go ahead !  ;)

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2009, 14:16 »
0
If anyone can tender a reason why "web" should mean "cheaper" i'm all ears. Don't make no sense at all to me.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2009, 18:21 by zymmetrical »

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2009, 14:49 »
0
Good post Keith.

The article reminds me once again that the business is going to blazes. It's not the first time people like named in the article are given a rotten deal. Too many to mention. Suffice to say, that going back to the 80s when I was a greenhorn photojournalist graduate straight out of college, I was , as hopeless a photographer as I was, still making a lot more money stringing for news work,etc.. The older pros making far more money than me, naturally.
Point being, today, none of us are even getting close to what we make , with our 20 odd years experience, plus our techniques well -honed.
Why? all the business has gone to get images for nothing or almost next to nothing.
I get editors telling me that I could contribute for free if I wanted the photo credit and publicity.  Lol, why would I need to do that? If I were that greenhorn kid straight out photo college, maybe. But even then, at that time, I never did an assignment for free. Today, well, it's another story.
Any tom, dick and mary... or pierre, jacques and henri, as we call it here,
will quickly replace you . Not because their images are better, but because
they will do the job for free.

We really cannot turn back time. We cannot even try to reset the mechanism.
I think it's all broken. Unless a great upheaval happens, to rebalance the equilibrium of photographers worth, I doubt anything will happen except that the earnings are going to be far less than it was 20 years ago.

Simply because anyone can spot a DSLR to do the job . Shoot a better images, better standard? What standard, fgs!  Most of the editors haven't the faintest idea what the standard is , either.

Submit and shut up. I guess that would be the only thing left.
Unless someone else has a better idea?
I am all ears too...

« Last Edit: August 07, 2009, 14:51 by Squat »

« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2009, 17:25 »
0
 I haven't had time to really soak it in so I have stayed pretty neutral so far. I know it is going to effect both markets but I can't really say which way yet. I was a bit surprised by the announcement.

Jonathan

« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2009, 23:50 »
0
Funny two days ago I was looking for a photo of overwegith (not obese)
but cute sexy girls wearing plain shirts and I couldn't find anything on any microstock place..to save my life..so I was looking at Getty....

So today that means....photos are cheaper there......

I went to the site....and they are not only offering images at such low price,

not only that..but with the Biggest benefit of alll...

unlike most Microstock all their images come with indemnification ....

I know this is a big thing with big ad agencies and such because I worked with
some before....It is a requirement...

So, now, this is some serious competition with microstock places...

with the affiliate marketing bringing more people, flooding the market with more images..good and bad....now with even more Giants competitors

what else is left?

whats your plan B besides being a microstock photog or artist?




« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2009, 00:07 »
0
If anyone can tender a reason why "web" should mean "cheaper" i'm all ears. Don't make no sense at all to me.

"Web" doesn't mean cheaper.  "Smaller" means cheaper.  It looks like Getty and iStock are meeting in the middle, that's all.

« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2009, 02:44 »
0
If anyone can tender a reason why "web" should mean "cheaper" i'm all ears. Don't make no sense at all to me.
What do you need to supply for web use, a Medium resolution image the average width 400-500px and the largest web use would be 900px wide.

Providing the licence says web use then I cannot see a problem with limited use and a lower price point.

David   

« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2009, 03:00 »
0
Measuring the value of an image by its size seems pretty strange to me. The Mona Lisa is fairly small, as far as paintings go.

« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2009, 03:34 »
0
The point that many miss is the usage, you read about web or blog use and the comments tend to say that a website is visited by millions, or a blog is read millions of times, which is not often the case average websites and blogs may get from tens to a few hundred visits, I have 4 websites and they average 250 visitors a month each, many of them are returning visitors.

I would say I am an average blogger that might use small images in their blog posts, I purchase and licence these through Istock because all I need is an xsmall image medium resolution with limited use and Istock is the best value for my money, and I gladly pay 1 credit and may use more than one image in a single post, I will normally use the image only the once to catch the readers eye and illustrate a point, despite the doom and gloom mongers opinions, I am not going to print it, make a poster, presentation or a flyer, and with 5 - 6 images in a blog post it can cost me $10, I might spend $250 in a year to illustrate a point in a blog or article, but would I as a web image user pay more, I think not and I would look for free images instead or purchased RF image DVD or CD collections, as the web post could only get read 20-100 times, my average is about only 50 times, and it is unlikely the average reader will snatch the image, but like in all walks of life the focus will be on those that might abuse something rather than the majority that do not.

As I have written many times now I.M.H.O. the biggest market still to be catered for is web sized image users, to capture this market requires low price points and easy access, the price points on the microsites are about right but the access to using these images is not, as they are not Pay-as-you-go if I need a 1 credit image I may have to buy 10 for 14 so a sale might be lost if I can do without, but we can leave that for another topic.
  
Back to Getty, this is a very wise move as you need to look at current markets and growth, there is no room to move or grow in the current markets, a lot of the Getty customers will have websites and might think about cutting costs and the microsite to source images, if Getty can retain the existing Customers and bring in new Customers for the websize images then it is not a negative move.

David
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 03:59 by Adeptris »

« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2009, 05:46 »
0
RF  170 px  $5 / $10     280 px   $15 / $25   413 px  $35 / $49
Rights-managed same sizes $15   $35 $49
Rights-managed images are licensed for a defined scope of usage that may include restrictions on territory, industry, duration, placement or print run.   

sounds * close to microstock to me, I wonder what their contributors think? I can imagine those professionals who come give us a rant from time to time being ecsatatic with this.  I can't say I'd be impressed with what 20-30% of a $15 sale that had restrictions on further usage, sort of kills the arguments in favor selling images as rm doesnt it??

Question is will other macros follow suit? (no idea if the go in for price wars)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2009, 06:38 »
0
This is not just about web but stuff like email and mobile device usage.

http://www.gettyimages.com/creative/frontdoor/WebAndMobileImages

Getty is seeing this as an opportunity for new revenue. Only time will tell if this creates new revenue or cannibalizes existing sales.

« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2009, 06:48 »
0
This is not just about web but stuff like email and mobile device usage.
<...
>...
Getty is seeing this as an opportunity for new revenue. Only time will tell if this creates new revenue or cannibalizes existing sales.

Thanks for the link I have shortened and tweeted it, using the laptop when the forum links or images are to long I get annoying scroll bars!

http://bit.ly/uhEsG

David.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2009, 06:58 »
0
What's your laptop resolution? 640x480?  ;D

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2009, 07:06 »
0

whats your plan B besides being a microstock photog or artist?


Contribute to Getty? Keep my day job?  ;)

« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2009, 07:10 »
0
What's your laptop resolution? 640x480?  ;D

The problem is I design software and to do it right I design at 1024 x 768, as it is used not only on different PC's but on dumb terminals, and it could be on really old kit in some countries, so all my testing of the GUI has to be done at 1024 x 768.

Back to Getty, I just had a try and picked up an RM image, selected a web use size and single website, it then asks 'In which territories will the image appear?' what a silly question on an intranet I could say which territories but not on the world wide web, the clue is in the name 'World'.

David  ::)  
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 07:36 by Adeptris »

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2009, 07:28 »
0
Well it's not how big it is, it's how you use it. :)    Maybe HTML5 will include some kind of new image format that can track views natively without Javascript. Embed your hashed ID into the image directly, if it's not correct image won't display.  DRM for pics.  Regional restrictions could also be enforced.    That is, until some hacker from Scandinavia cracks the encoding and it all is for nothing. :)


« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2009, 07:37 »
0
You're making a basic argument about RM vs. RF, not Getty selling at a smaller size or anything.

« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2009, 11:06 »
0
You're making a basic argument about RM vs. RF, not Getty selling at a smaller size or anything.
I welcome Getty trying different things, the target is more mobile than website use from the sizes.
RF  170 px  $5 / $10, mobile phone more than website, (same size as an un-watermarked Alamy thumbnail)
RF  280 px   $15 / $25, and RF  413 px  $35 / $49, Website use but very limited, I would look for 415px - 500px wide, $2-4$ Istock image for a website, blog or article, cannot see the $15 - $49 added value from Getty,  and I would use a 900px wide as a website header element.

The prices might be nice for existing Getty business customers, but I cannot see the prices attracting many 'new customers', the positive is Getty leads and the other microstock and midstock watch and might push up the prices using Getty prices as justification.

David  ;D  

« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2009, 14:20 »
0
Measuring the value of an image by its size seems pretty strange to me. The Mona Lisa is fairly small, as far as paintings go.
I don't think the comparison is adequate, as certainly a larger painting by Leonardo would have costed more, as it would have meant more work.  Sizes in stock photography are not related to amount of work.

In RF world, size limits usage.  A web-size image won't make a poster or a full page in a magazine.  In RM world, it all depends on the usage negotiated.  The buyer may receive a 20MPix file, but if he purchased it for a 1/4th inner page in a book, this is only what he can do it (legally).

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2009, 14:45 »
0
Size doesn't limit usage in the digital world. Yahoo.com could license a web size, and throw it on their homepage, and get millions of views a day on it. That's the current disconnect.   This fantasy that there's so many 'bloggers' in the world constantly licensing stock images (when a CC image usually will do to illustrate their point, or it's editorial) needs to be taken down a notch - website designs, website templates & other purely commercial uses are a huge deal in digital.

Look at the top blogs (like here: http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/ ) and examine the pics and if they are stock-y and don't have credits, Tineye them to find the source. It really doesn't seem like blogs are as big of a deal as is constantly marketed. The real market is people who are turning direct profits off the images, such as web template designers or B2C usages.    

I guess so long as people chase short term sales volume vs. long term market health it's going to take a while for this to sink in. Traditional print licensing of images can only be measured in vague, Nielsen-rating type ways which generalize "eyes on the image" quantities.  Digital should be exact since the data is there in 1s and 0s.  

Edit** I don't claim to know the answer for this issue, that's for example why we just don't do a "web size" at Zymm.  If you're stuck in the woods and don't know where to go, just stay put. :)       I think there can be no real conclusion for the imbalance unless some kind of digital RM system is applied.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 15:00 by zymmetrical »

« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2009, 15:30 »
0
Thanks for the headsup Jonathan, and for posting the actual prices Phil.  Yes, these certainly do seem like they are heading toward micro prices.

I can't see how Getty has a whole lot of choice.  Adapt or die.  I have been reading predictions that Macro prices would head south to compete with micro for years and this seems to prove those predictions right.

I don't upsize much, but I do get the photo mags with the ads for Blow Up and Genuine Fractals.   How good are these programs and how much can they uprez and retain acceptable quality?

Is there a danger of these small images being bought on the cheap, uprezzed, and taking sales that might have gone to larger sizes?

I doubt most Getty photographers will be happy about this at all.  If prices continue to drop in macro then more macro photographers will probably start submitting micro too.  Which of course means increased competition for us. 

Reminds me of a quote from Norm Petersen on Cheers:  "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear". 

« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2009, 01:04 »
0
<..
>..
Look at the top blogs (like here: http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/ ) and examine the pics and if they are stock-y and don't have credits, Tineye them to find the source. It really doesn't seem like blogs are as big of a deal as is constantly marketed. The real market is people who are turning direct profits off the images, such as web template designers or B2C usages.    
>..
<..
Edit** I don't claim to know the answer for this issue, that's for example why we just don't do a "web size" at Zymm.  If you're stuck in the woods and don't know where to go, just stay put. :)       I think there can be no real conclusion for the imbalance unless some kind of digital RM system is applied.

I research differently, looking at many blogs I find that most could be enhanced by a microstock image, the key problems as I see it to grab a slice of this market is the lack of editorial images in microstock and easy delivery.

Thinking outside the box, editorial image use has been much overlooked, the focus has been to saturate the market with trendy commercial images, the original thinking about basic editorial was magazines and newpapers, but things have moved on where anyone can have an editorial presence online, via a website, blog or contributing articles, these people are not serviced well with microstock priced editorial content, it is not there is no demand but there is no supply, Alamy have nearly 17 million images most of these are editorial, where is the microstock alternative?
  
Looking at things like business blogs where there are a few microstock images of server farms, business people, stock graphs, concept images for growth etc:, but what if I was an independent blogger writing an editorial article on the credit crunch and I needed an editorial shot of a banks frontage or HQ building where can I get one (spot size on Alamy ouch!), or if I was writing about the recession and the motor industry, where do I get the suitable editorial blog size images, in the small quantity and at a price point I want?

Example writing a banking editorial article about RBS like this one:
1. Google: Search Editorial Microstock: Yay, Shutterstock & Alamy
2. Yay Micro: search RBS No images
3. ShutterStock: search RBS images but no Bank
4. Alamy: 60 RF or 90 RM
5. Getty: Not available at new mobile or web use, calculator $49

So not being a business but an independent or personal blogger, I have to write the article as plain text and a photographer has missed a sale, just because I cannot get a suitable image as limited use for a blog article at a reasonable enough price, the question is why not?  
 
The image in that article looks like a stock image, but TinEye returned nothing.
 
Travel blogs require images of people and places, airline companies, all the others like lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals, sports, where independent people write very informative articles and blogs on almost every subject but quite often they are just flat text and lack an eye catching image to attract and hold the reader, Getty look to have seen the potential of this market, will the prices be attractive enough for information providers and non business writers, and where is the microstock alternative?.

Back to Getty, generally delivery to or the label 'mobile phone use' would cause me more concern than the blog sizes, if one of my daughters or grandchildren could grap a nice RF/RM 'mobile screensaver' for $5-$10, and yes I know it says 'Mobile apps and sites' and the licence does not cover being used as a mobile screensaver, but from what I know of them they would not read or understand the T&C's, the image would just be downloaded to one phone and then be sent to a number of thier family and friends phones within minutes, then on to a number of thier friends friends and Tineye will not find these infringements.

David      
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 03:00 by Adeptris »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2009, 06:59 »
0

Travel blogs require images of people and places, airline companies, all the others like lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals, sports, where independent people write very informative articles and blogs on almost every subject but quite often they are just flat text and lack an eye catching image to attract and hold the reader, Getty look to have seen the potential of this market, will the prices be attractive enough for information providers and non business writers, and where is the microstock alternative?.
   

From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes.
Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one.
From a contributer's pov, I've noticed that it's really not worthwhile to upload unusual species or places on iStock (can't speak for anywhere else). You get one or two sales, maybe five at best. So now I'm uploading these to Macro, where just one sale might return more than the file would ever get on micro. Wearing my wildlife charity newsletter editor's hat, that's unfortunate, but that's the commercial truth.
You see requests on iStock for e.g. an unusual breed of dog. Half a dozen people rush out and shoot said dog, one image may, or may not, be bought (sometimes I think these posts are just chain-pulls) and the other images usually languish forever.

« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2009, 07:59 »
0
From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes.
<...
>...
Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one.
<...
>...
For an editorial blog I would want the holiday shots of large crowds of people on holiday or at events, a beach full of holiday makers, an airport queue,  a festival or carnival, for lifestyle activities like a family vist to an event natural and 'wearing the Nike trainers', sports the same clothing and events, all these would not have a release for the people or property, so I would not find them on the microsites only empty places and small intimate groups of people released shots wearing plain cloths with no logo's.

Monitoring usage is a matter of license conditions, there are limitations on RF so what is the difference with RM, the onus is on the person using the image, providing it is clearly licensed for editorial use only, there should be no problem.

I do think with this move from Getty you will see microsites move to include editorial content, as there are no new markets to exploit.

David  ;)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 08:02 by Adeptris »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2009, 08:30 »
0
From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes.
<...
>...
Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one.
<...
>...
For an editorial blog I would want the holiday shots of large crowds of people on holiday or at events, a beach full of holiday makers, an airport queue,  a festival or carnival, for lifestyle activities like a family vist to an event natural and 'wearing the Nike trainers', sports the same clothing and events, all these would not have a release for the people or property, so I would not find them on the microsites only empty places and small intimate groups of people released shots wearing plain cloths with no logo's.

Monitoring usage is a matter of license conditions, there are limitations on RF so what is the difference with RM, the onus is on the person using the image, providing it is clearly licensed for editorial use only, there should be no problem.

David  ;)

I guess if I was writing a blog, I'd have been there, and I'd have taken the photo.  :D
However, usage of RF images has very few restrictions, and from discussions on the iStock forums are very subjective (I can't speak about other sites).
Editorial would have to be much stricter, and much more carefully monitored. I can easily see why an agency wouldn't want the hassle at microstock prices.
 

« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2009, 10:52 »
0
Exactly.  So how is Getty supposed to make any profit from this move??  Sure they have the resources to monitor use and deal with abuses, but will they be getting paid enough per shot to keep up those resources? Will those investigations be worth the cost?  Will the average blogger pay the prices they're asking?  And will those files sell over and over per day like they do at microstock in order to make up in volume for both the agency and contributors?  Doesn't sound promising all-around.


« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2009, 14:01 »
0
I guess if I was writing a blog, I'd have been there, and I'd have taken the photo.  :D
However, usage of RF images has very few restrictions, and from discussions on the iStock forums are very subjective (I can't speak about other sites).
Editorial would have to be much stricter, and much more carefully monitored. I can easily see why an agency wouldn't want the hassle at microstock prices.

I do write a blog and I purchase RF licensed images from Istock because they are affordable, and many standard microstock images are used in blogs already, not everyone who writes a travel blog is confident with a camera, even if they are there could well be an image that they missed or did not turn out good enough.

You are correct that RF images have very few restrictions, but they do have restrictions on use I cannot use a $2 download in a web template for instance, RF just means one payment then free of ongoing royalties for the specified use, but not free of restrictions.
RM means a payment of royalties for a specific, use, time period, sector and territory, this means any additional or repeat use should be paid for, it does not grant exclusive sector and territory use as many believe, and a history of use should be offered if asked for.

Why would Editorial need to be any stricter, and more carefully monitored, if you have licensed the image for editorial web use then that is the usage the license was issued for, the same as if I licence and download an RF commercial image, I am not allowed to sell downloads, prints, tee-shirts or any other merchandise.

Getty have included both RF and RM images in this usage, if someone purchases RM then the use is limited by license conditions, just like any other sale.

Exactly.  So how is Getty supposed to make any profit from this move??  Sure they have the resources to monitor use and deal with abuses, but will they be getting paid enough per shot to keep up those resources? Will those investigations be worth the cost?  Will the average blogger pay the prices they're asking?  And will those files sell over and over per day like they do at microstock in order to make up in volume for both the agency and contributors?  Doesn't sound promising all-around.

Once you have uploaded an image and the inspectors have passed or rejected it, the main supplier cost to Getty or any other website has been already meet, adding it to the database and storage is minimal, as you say the microstock model is to sell over and over again, what small percentage of the millions of images sell more than a few times 5% - 10%, the libraries need the other 90% to boast about the number of images they have for you to search through, this 90% of images have a cost but generate no direct revenue.

iStockphoto.com was founded in 2000 and many different models have sprung up based on the original concept, and now over nine years later they have changed the face of stock imaging, in doing this the enormous growth has now levelled out, there are no new microstock markets to exploit, they are the same as the photographer and need to generate a RPI, as the library and competition grows the revenue has reached a peak the RPI starts to falls.

Lets look at what they already have at no extra cost, millions of images, a customer base, infrastructure, all the tools they need to explore new markets, the first attack is on the Midstock website by creating a premium collection, these will not sell lots and lots will not impact the existing business but will have a higher RPI, now we look at the 90% of images that do not sell that much, shrink them in size and offer them all as website use, the sizes on offer will not impact existing sales, new buyers might be attracted by the low prices, and any revenue will be a bonus as there is no additional cost over what has already been spent.

Does web use including editorial come with any more risk, not really because they will clearly state the intended use, if someone infringes this it is not the websites fault as all the information about use was issued at the point of sale, anyway they already have a department that deals with infringement, this department does not actively look for offenders but responds to contributors who find an image in use where it is not licensed, vary rarely they will get to find out where a print run exceeded the license terms, so this is good use of resources and a winning situation.

Will blogger pay the Getty prices, maybe not personal bloggers, but corporate bloggers, editorial and advertorial article writers will, and with these customers any risk is again much reduced for Getty, and the whole libraries RPI is more healthy, but will another microsite look at this model we will have to wait and see.

I.M.H.O. This is one that no microstock photographer should sit on the fence with, as currently the supplier and digital asset growth is far more than the sales revenue growth, where this can only lead to a fall in RPI, new ideas and business models to open new markets no matter how small are far more important than new libraries that will dilute the existing revenue streams.       

David  ;D  
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 14:22 by Adeptris »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2009, 18:49 »
0
I guess if I was writing a blog, I'd have been there, and I'd have taken the photo.  :D
However, usage of RF images has very few restrictions, and from discussions on the iStock forums are very subjective (I can't speak about other sites).
Editorial would have to be much stricter, and much more carefully monitored. I can easily see why an agency wouldn't want the hassle at microstock prices.

I do write a blog and I purchase RF licensed images from Istock because they are affordable, and many standard microstock images are used in blogs already, not everyone who writes a travel blog is confident with a camera, even if they are there could well be an image that they missed or did not turn out good enough.

Sorry, I was being a bit flip. There's an RBS within five minute's walk from my house, which of course isn't the case for everyone, so I found your scenario rather more amusing than was appropriate. In fact, I uploaded a photo of a double-ATM of Ulsterbank (same logo) to Alamy this past week.

Quote
You are correct that RF images have very few restrictions, but they do have restrictions on use I cannot use a $2 download in a web template for instance, RF just means one payment then free of ongoing royalties for the specified use, but not free of restrictions.
RM means a payment of royalties for a specific, use, time period, sector and territory, this means any additional or repeat use should be paid for, it does not grant exclusive sector and territory use as many believe, and a history of use should be offered if asked for.

Why would Editorial need to be any stricter, and more carefully monitored, if you have licensed the image for editorial web use then that is the usage the license was issued for, the same as if I licence and download an RF commercial image, I am not allowed to sell downloads, prints, tee-shirts or any other merchandise.

I'm only guessing here, but with the current model iStock (remember, it's the only micro I've had dealings with, I'm not singling them out) only has to bother with some image being discovered where an EL hasn't been purchased (and can take a long time to clear this up, according to a current thread over there), or a few cases where there is doubt about how an image has been used, where iStock's interpretation is 'looser' than mine and many others would have been.

However, I guess they'd be much more worried about the possiblity of some big company suing because a photo with someone's intellectual property decides to sue because of a usage of the image. I hear what you're saying about who is responsible if the image has been clearly marked as for editorial use only, and have mentioned this on iStock's forums more than once. The general feeling seems to be that iStock and, by dint of their contributer's agreement, would also be responsible, in some legislations. The fact that you, or I, can't believe this is neither here nor there. (A parallel situation would be if someone went in to a fruit shop and bought an apple which they hurled in such a way to injure or kill someone else. In which legislation  could the fruiterer be sued?)

The debate about editorial has been rehearsed several times on iStock's forums. They must be aware of the potential of the market and presumably they have experts advising them on the potential/risk balance.

As for me, I'm submitting editorial as RM, which again, for the reasons I've already stated on this thread, makes far more sense for a contributer if the topic isn't likely to be a 'top seller'.

« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2009, 02:33 »
0
I'm only guessing here, but with the current model iStock (remember, it's the only micro I've had dealings with, I'm not singling them out) only has to bother with some image being discovered where an EL hasn't been purchased (and can take a long time to clear this up, according to a current thread over there), or a few cases where there is doubt about how an image has been used, where iStock's interpretation is 'looser' than mine and many others would have been.

However, I guess they'd be much more worried about the possiblity of some big company suing because a photo with someone's intellectual property decides to sue because of a usage of the image. I hear what you're saying about who is responsible if the image has been clearly marked as for editorial use only, and have mentioned this on iStock's forums more than once. The general feeling seems to be that iStock and, by dint of their contributer's agreement, would also be responsible, in some legislations. The fact that you, or I, can't believe this is neither here nor there. (A parallel situation would be if someone went in to a fruit shop and bought an apple which they hurled in such a way to injure or kill someone else. In which legislation  could the fruiterer be sued?)

The debate about editorial has been rehearsed several times on iStock's forums. They must be aware of the potential of the market and presumably they have experts advising them on the potential/risk balance.

As for me, I'm submitting editorial as RM, which again, for the reasons I've already stated on this thread, makes far more sense for a contributer if the topic isn't likely to be a 'top seller'.

Hi Sue??,
The Getty Model is now supplying RM in these web sizes where the sizes and resolution limits the potential for miss-use, as for Istock who are owned by Getty and editorial images, they do not have the same library so there would have to be a lot of changes for them to accept editorial and it could change how they are positioned in the market, they are already looking at different ways to supply commercial images, this does not stop any other agencies with commercial and or editorial images from looking at web size image supply and different ways of delivery.

From the legal side Getty have done the risk assesments and seen fit to supply this market and they own Istock, the difference in the two models would be the customers, so maybe Getty perceive that there is a bigger risk with the type of customers, or for me more likely is the thinking that smaller web sized images offered on Istock may damage existing Xsmall and Small RF license sales.

Looking at the blogging, article writing and website authors, that would use these smaller images and wondering if the market is worth exploring we need to look at the changes since 2000, starting with the ease of setting up and becoming active in web design, blogging, social networking etc:, this market was not there or hard work when microstock was launched so as a viable market it was not considered, now the market has grown and matured it is worth a closer look, as a blogger I use a desktop application the latest Microsft Word or thier free Windows Live Writer, both can publish to my website articles, F.A.Q's. Forum or blogs, so I can compose everything to do with my website over any period of time, offline and on my PC before publishing, when ready I never have to login to publish or change anything just press a button, and the text and images are published to the web, so it is really easy to have an internet presence.    

How big is the blogging market alone and is it worth the effort the number would suggest they are:
Quote from: The Blog Herarald: February 2008
Technorati currently states it is tracking over 112.8 million blogs, a number which obviously does not include all the 72.82 million Chinese blogs.
Technorati as a ping service and indexing engine does disclose the number of blogs they track but Google doesnt.

To me that is a sizeable market that is under serviced for legal image supply, one that may have a bad reputation for image miss-use, but how much of that is just ignorance of where and how to get legal low-res and low priced images?

David  ;)  
  
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 02:43 by Adeptris »

« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2009, 11:38 »
0
Great post David,

 I don't know where you get your info but from my sources your explanation is close to spot on. Thanks for taking the time to type it all out, very informative.

Best,
Jonathan

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2009, 11:23 »
0
@david :

you forget to mention that 99% of those millions of blogs are "spamlogs" created in bulk with automated software.

the biggest blogs, as you noticed already, are quite allergic regarding stock images, they usually scrap CC images from Flickr often without any link to the author or just steal pics from google images with no shame whatsover.

the only one i recall paying for photos and adding a credit line is the Huffington Post.
the other steal everything and never credit anything, even TechCrunch, of the top-5 blogs
on the web.

on the other side there's sure a potential market for mobile, tempate designers, and any small-sized application, it was time that a big agency like Getty moved in this direction and i hope the other RM will follow soon : there's no reason buyers should buy my pics (50MB, large 5000x4000px) if they only need a thumbnail or a small box on a book.

and don't worry, buyers are not paying for a photo, but for a solution to their needs !
never forget this key point.

as you rightly said, the editorial choice on micros sucks big time.
in fact i mainly do editorial, always and only sold RM, and never felt the minimum need to
try RF and micros nor ever will in the future.

and my earnings are rising, despite the 17 millions images on Alamy,
because editorial is a very huge field, it comprises any possible thing on heart,
micros by opposite are a niche, and all they do is mainly images about business, food,
cutouts, vectors, and the other usual boring micro-style imagery you see in any flyer
and magazine.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 11:48 by Sergey »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2009, 11:35 »
0

Submit and shut up. I guess that would be the only thing left.
Unless someone else has a better idea?
I am all ears too...

it's not that pictures are now worth peanuts but that buyers aren't willing to pay as before.

for editorial, it all started years ago with a huge decrease in advertising revenues
and now that they're moving all on the web it's even worse.

the price you pay for a newspaper or magazine barely pay the production costs.
all the net gain comes from advertising and eventually classifieds and premium services.

but the crisis for editorial started because of TV : TV ads have a much higher return on investment
for the clients, period.

now the web is the last straw for the dying press industry and no wonder photographers are
fired, journalists are paid 5$/article or even replaced by bloggers (!).

this "everything is free" orgy must stop, and it must stop asap.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2009, 11:43 »
0

Travel blogs require images of people and places, airline companies, all the others like lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals, sports, where independent people write very informative articles and blogs on almost every subject but quite often they are just flat text and lack an eye catching image to attract and hold the reader, Getty look to have seen the potential of this market, will the prices be attractive enough for information providers and non business writers, and where is the microstock alternative?.
   

From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes.
Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one.
From a contributer's pov, I've noticed that it's really not worthwhile to upload unusual species or places on iStock (can't speak for anywhere else). You get one or two sales, maybe five at best. So now I'm uploading these to Macro, where just one sale might return more than the file would ever get on micro. Wearing my wildlife charity newsletter editor's hat, that's unfortunate, but that's the commercial truth.
You see requests on iStock for e.g. an unusual breed of dog. Half a dozen people rush out and shoot said dog, one image may, or may not, be bought (sometimes I think these posts are just chain-pulls) and the other images usually languish forever.

i think you're way too optimistic about blogs.

casual bloggers will never pay for images,
and in the rare occasion when they spend some
time searching for a picture instead of stealing
it right away from google images, they end up
on Flickr.

WHO told you they're ready to pay 5$ or even 1$ for
every image ? who ?

besides, it makes financial sense only for medium sized
blogs, and there are not many around.

also, most of their posts are about news events, sports,
politics, they need fresh images about celebrities and VIPs,
which in a perfect world would mean Getty, AP, AFP, etc,
but in this rotten world it means they just steal the picture
somewhere claiming it's "fair use".

not to mention most of these * bloggers have no idea
about copyright, go figure what do they know about RF or RM
or CC or ...


« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2009, 13:27 »
0
i think you're way too optimistic about blogs.

casual bloggers will never pay for images, and in the rare occasion when they spend some time searching for a picture instead of stealing it right away from google images, they end up on Flickr.

WHO told you they're ready to pay 5$ or even 1$ for every image ? who ?

besides, it makes financial sense only for medium sized blogs, and there are not many around.

also, most of their posts are about news events, sports, politics, they need fresh images about celebrities and VIPs, which in a perfect world would mean Getty, AP, AFP, etc, but in this rotten world it means they just steal the picture somewhere claiming it's "fair use".

not to mention most of these  bloggers have no idea about copyright, go figure what do they know about RF or RM or CC or ...

Sergey,
You answered your own questions, you asked me how I qualify that bloggers will pay for images, I like many others do already blog and pay for images, just look at the many blogs that do already use stock images, then you say that most of these  bloggers have no idea about copyright.

You are correct that, there is a shortage of 'blog editorial images', many bloggers do not use images, many use images they download from Google, many use CC images from Flickr.

But then many internet users may not listen to music, many will buy thier audio tracks, many will use audio they download from the internet, others know it is theft and use file sharing.

So should we just ignore this market, many internet users are just not aware that downloading an image is an infringement, but they do know that to get a music sound track they have to pay, how did they get to this awareness?

Because the music industry is very proactive in protecting thier artists royalties, thier own investments and revenue streams, to do this they ran an agressive campaign to educate the internet users, under threat many ISP no longer allow music sites that are not squeeky clean, one woman in the US recently got a $1 million fine, 20 music tracks @ 50k each.

But with images I can go and create a blog today, write a post and insert images that I ripped from the web, while I am doing this there has been no message about copyrighted material, when downloading or inserting an image no file information, there is no default plug-in for the blog software to source licenced images.

To correct this there are two steps, one is to educate the bloggers and article writers, the second is to provide tools as default that source our licenced images, these can be free or paid for but the key is that they are licenced by the creators.

We can try to look at ways to change this by making bloggers more aware and providing services to facilitate image use, or just take another approach and rant that the scumbag bloggers will never use licenced images!


David  ;D        
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 13:32 by Adeptris »

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2009, 13:59 »
0
look around you : TECHCRUNCH is stealing EVERY other image they use, EVERY ONE !
and nobody complains.

they also rip a big part of articles from the net claiming it's a small "citation"
(40 lines is a citation ?), and when cornered they rant about "fair use".

now, fair use is only legal in the US, and it clearly states it's only
for NO PROFITS.

but anyway, you must a rare case of blogger who pays for images.

the music industry is doing fine, we should do the same actually,
but pays the bills for the lawyers ?
we should join a photo association that monthly scouts the net
for stolen images, send invoices to the thieves, and deposit
our fee in our bank account automagically.

that's a potential huge business hehehe ...



plugins :
there's an interesting automated addon for wordpress
that grabs CC images from Flickr and add link to author,
resize, etc

with a few tweaks it could be made to work for micros
if they support some APIs but you see everybody is expecting
everything for free so nobody will ever write such an app...

bloggers : wait a minute, it's not OUR fault if they steal
our images.

if it takes a long time to find a free and legitimate
image, so be it, it's not an excuse for stealing the first
good picture popping up on google images !

the bloggers' mindset is pretty simple : "i like this image,
i'll use it" and "nice article, i'll copy it and post it on my blog".

and then people is surprised when they receive invoice from
the RIAA or when Pirate Bay close down and pay millions in damages.

here in europe especially people consider their "right" to
download anything, we've now even political "pirate parties" in sweden, france,
and germany and they're spreading quickly.

thieves will always find a good excuse to steal.
now they rant against the copyright, it's the same old story.

we need more police and quicker ways to denounce thieves.

rockstars can pretty well live giving away their mp3s and
making money with live shows and t-shirts but we photographers
have no such alternatives.

and we're lucky because writers are in worse position,
text articles get stolen every day, or they rewrite
the story from scratch and voila' ... at least with photos
they can hard "re-shoot" the same image.

« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2009, 15:29 »
0
Sergey,
You answered your own questions, you asked me how I qualify that bloggers will pay for images, I like many others do already blog and pay for images, just look at the many blogs that do already use stock images, then you say that most of these  bloggers have no idea about copyright.

You are correct that, there is a shortage of 'blog editorial images', many bloggers do not use images, many use images they download from Google, many use CC images from Flickr.

It's hard to say in which side is the majority of bloggers.  Most blogs I have visited from friends and colleagues show their own material - personal photos/videos, some of commercial value like folks from here.  I have however found images of mine at blogs, most of which watermarked.  I guess most people think it is alright to use them, like it is alright to use anything from the internet except what is clearly marked otherwise (general understanding, even if not correct).  I have even seen unwatermarked thumbnails from my images in use.  Some people know it is wrong but use it anyway (I've emailed people and businesses using such material, often to be ignored).  If I had to guess, most people use images in blogs or whatever without a legitimate license.  It is however impossible to prevent this.

PS: I believe most people whose blogs are for professional use, if they learn they can not just use images but can pay cheap for them, they will do it legally.  For personal use, however, I believe there is less drive to pay.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 15:36 by madelaide »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2009, 16:15 »
0
.Most blogs I have visited from friends and colleagues show their own material - personal photos/videos, some of commercial value like folks from here.  I have however found images of mine at blogs, most of which watermarked.
And then there are the ones who blythely hotlink to images - I've had a lot of this from my personal website, which I used to pro-actively chase up, to little avail, then used to swap the images for one which just said the words "Hotlinking is theft". I changed the URI of one image five times, but the hotlinkers persisted in following it up and hotlinking to it.
That was before I was spending all my time shooting and pp-ing for agencies. Now I just leave the hotlinkers to it. My personal site images are scrunched way down, from when I was on wet-string dial-up for about five years after everyone else was on broadband, and no-one could possibly make any money out of them.

Sergey

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2009, 16:22 »
0
exactly and i repeat : it's not just the casual bloggers but first and foremost the top-10 blogs
like TechCrunch and don't tell me they have no money as they claim to rank up 50-60.000$/month in
advertising and yet they steal pictures, rip articles, and even criticize AP for selling articles or snippets
of text.

it's just thievery, no more no less and i've serious doubts that Getty will make money with bloggers, they will
instead focus on template designers et al.

and watermarks dont help much, they steal the pictures anyway with watermark and all.

such an easy life for bloggers eh ?
free images, free articles, free videos, free podcasts ...

i'm all in favor of china-style laws regarding blogging.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4129 Views
Last post October 19, 2006, 08:00
by CJPhoto
3 Replies
4200 Views
Last post September 01, 2007, 01:20
by sharpshot
31 Replies
14655 Views
Last post September 03, 2010, 20:38
by OM
26 Replies
16949 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 19:08
by Jo Ann Snover
7 Replies
3281 Views
Last post January 30, 2015, 12:46
by Monkeyman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors